Jharkhand High Court
P. Suresh vs Union Of India Through Central Bureau Of ... on 5 January, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 300 of 2023
---------
P. Suresh, aged about 56 years, son of Suryanarayana, Resident of 8-2-293-
82/L/197A/A, G-1, Nirvana Apartment, Sri Venkateswara Co-operative
Society, MLA Colony Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Khairatabad, P.O. and
P.S. Khairatabad, District-Hyderabad, State-Telangana.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation
.......Opposite Party
With
A.B.A. No. 1805 of 2021
---------
1. K. Srinivasa Rao, aged about 48 years, son of Sri Nageswar Rao, resident of
Vasantha Valley, Flat No.21, Phase-II, White Fields, Kondapur, P.O.
Kondapur, P.S. Kondapur, District-Hyderabad (Telangana).
2. Nama Seethaiah, aged about 55 years, son of Late Muthaiah Nama, resident
of Nehru Nagar, 1-7-70, Khamman, P.O. Khammam, P.S. Khammam,
Town, District-Khammam (Telangana).
... ... Petitioners
Versus
Union of India through CBI
.......Opposite Party
With
---------
B. Sudhakara Rao, aged about 51 years, son of B. Laxmi Narayana, Resident
of 52-1/53A, Flat No.402, Aahalada Residency, Veterinary Colony Road
No.4, Vijayawada (Urban), Krishna, P.O. and P.S. Vijayawada, State-Andra
Pradesh.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation
.......Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Nitish Parth Sarthi, Advocate
-----------
th
10/Dated: 05 January, 2024
1. All these anticipatory bail applications have been filed under Sections 438
and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of pre-arrest bail in
connection with R.C. 02A of 2019-R, ACB, Ranchi registered under
Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 and 477A of IPC and Section 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The prosecution story in brief which requires to be enumerated herein, reads
as under:
The case was registered on the basis of the order dated 25.07.2018 of
Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi passed in W.P.(PIL) Nos. 3503
of 2014 and 2470 of 2015. The allegation is that accused Directors of M/s
Ranchi Expressway Ltd. in conspiracy with auditor M/s Kota and Company
used the accounts of Madhucon group of companies for obtaining the
drawdowns (disbursal) from the consortium of Banks fraudulently for
executing the project of "Four-Laning of Ranchi-Jamshedpur National
Highway (NH-33) in the State of Jharkhand" awarded by National Highways
Authority of India (NHAI) to M/s Ranchi Expressway Ltd.
As a result of the said conspiracy, funds to the tune of Rs.264.01 crore
was diverted and was not utilized for the purpose of project as mandated by
the Concession Agreement and the Common Loan Agreement. As a result of
the fraudulent acts of the said Directors of M/s Ranchi Expressway Ltd., a
total loan amount of Rs.1029.39 crore was released by the consortium of
Banks to M/s Ranchi Expressway Ltd., however, there was no
commensurate progress in the above said project.
3. It is evident from the first information report that altogether three allegations
have been levelled, i.e.,
(i) No progress commensurate with the loan released by the lenders
(Banks);
(ii) Round-tripping of Rs.50 crore on 03.01.2012 by the Directors of M/s
REL;
(iii) Diversion of mobilization and material advance of Rs.22 crore on
27.03.2012 by the Directors of M/s REL.
4. Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has
submitted that the allegations which have been levelled against them cannot
be said to be correct since no embezzlement of amount is there as has been
surfaced by the investigating agency in course of investigation.
5. It has also been submitted that the first imputation is regarding no progress
commensurate with the loan released by the lenders (Banks) but the ground
has been taken for no progress is not handing over the piece of land for the
purpose of construction of road in question.
So far as the second and third imputation are concerned, which
pertains to Round-tripping of Rs.50 crore on 03.01.2012 by the Directors of
M/s REL and; Diversion of mobilization and material advance of Rs.22
crore on 27.03.2012 by the Directors of M/s REL, respectively, the same
cannot be said to be having any criminal ingredient.
6. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has
emphatically argued that the petitioners all along have co-operated in
investigation and based upon their co-operation, the investigating agency has
completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet.
7. The submission has been made that once there is full co-operation of the
petitioners and since the stage of custodial interrogation is not required in
view of the fact that investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been
submitted and the cognizance has also been taken.
8. Further learned senior counsel for the petitioners strengthen his argument
has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr., (2022) 10 SCC 51 wherein, it has
been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that as per Article 21 of the
Constitution, the question of personal liberty is the paramount consideration
being the fundamental right and even in a case of criminal in nature
consideration is to be given before snatching the personal liberty of the
person concerned as granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners based upon the aforesaid ground
has submitted that it is a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail.
10.While, on the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI appearing for the
opposite parties has vehemently opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail by
referring to the allegations levelled in the chargesheet as appended.
11.It has been contended that it is due to the irregularity committed on the part
of the petitioners of diversion of the amounts which has been taken by way
of loan for the purpose of construction of the project, the said project has
been made to linger for a long period causing inconvenience to the public in
general.
Further ground has been taken by referring to the chargesheet that
there is also allegation of round-tripping of Rs.50 crore by the Directors of
M/s REL.
12.Learned senior counsel representing the CBI based upon the aforesaid
ground has opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail.
13.This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the FIR
and the chargesheet as also the material available on record.
14.The admitted fact herein is that the investigation is complete, chargesheet
has already been submitted. It is also admitted that the petitioners have all
along co-operated in the investigation. It is also admitted that due to their co-
operation, the investigation has completed and it has not been alleged by the
investigating agency that due to their non-cooperation, the investigation has
delayed.
15.The question of taking the petitioner in custody in such circumstances can be
said to be justified, that is the question to be considered by this Court while
appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties for the reason
that when the chargesheet has been submitted and the court has taken
cognizance then the question would be where is the requirement for taking
the petitioners in custody.
16.It is not in dispute that the very mandate of the Constitution of India as under
Article 21 thereof that the question of personal liberty is the paramount
consideration being the fundamental right. Even in a case of criminal in
nature consideration is to be given before snatching the personal liberty of
the person concerned as granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
17.it is also settled that if the criminal case has been set at motion, then it is the
bounded duty of the investigating agency to complete the investigation. If
the investigation is being delayed due to non-cooperation who has been
arrayed as accused in the FIR, certainly, it is the bounded duty of the
investigating agency to take steps against the persons for custody so that the
investigation be completed at an early date and the criminal case be set at
motion by commencement of the trial.
18.If there is attributality of causing delay in the investigation then it is the
prerogative of the investigating agency to take steps against the persons
named in the FIR in custody so as to complete the investigation at an early
date. But herein, that is not the circumstance so as to snatch the personal
liberty of the petitioners as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
rather it is the admitted case that the petitioners have all along co-operated in
the investigation and as such, it cannot be alleged against them that it is due
to their laches, the investigation has prolonged and there is procrastinated
investigation.
19.Further, the fact is also evident that the investigating agency is having no
complaint against the accused of non-cooperation. This Court has further
considered the fact that after taking cognizance the Court has issued
summons.
20.The question of providing non-cooperation in the trial at this stage will be
said to be pre-mature without assessing the conduct of the petitioners. The
matter would be different if the petitioners will not appear before the learned
trial court as and when warranted by the learned trial court then certainly the
learned trial court will have power to secure appearance of the petitioners by
taking steps in accordance with law.
21.The judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar
Antil vs. CBI (supra) which has been relied upon the learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners is concerned, the same has been objected by the
learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party-CBI by making
distinction with the principle as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
aforesaid case will not be applicable since herein in the facts of the case the
offence under Section 409 is also inserted.
22.So far as the contention of the learned senior counsel regarding the
applicability of the aforesaid case, this Court is of the view that taken is
merely based upon the object and intent not to allow the lingering of the
investigation and trial since as has been referred hereinabove that there is no
allegation of non-cooperation on behalf of the petitioners rather they have all
along cooperated, hence, even applying the principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the instant applications are fit to
be allowed.
23.This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the instant
anticipatory bail applications deserve to be allowed.
24.Accordingly, all the instant anticipatory bail applications stand allowed.
25.On consideration of the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to extend the
privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners of
A.B.A. No. 300 of 2023; A.B.A. No. 1805 of 2021 and; A.B.A. No. 322 of
2023, are hereby directed to surrender before the learned court below within
four weeks and on their surrender, they shall be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only)
with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned
Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ranchi; learned A.J.C.-XVI-cum-special
Judge, CBI, Ranchi and; learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ranchi
respectively in connection with R.C. 02A of 2019-R, ACB, Ranchi, subject
to the condition as follows:
(i) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
court or tamper with the evidence;
(ii) that the petitioners shall surrender their passport, if any, to the
concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody
of the concerned trial Court;
(iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India during the pendency of trial
without prior permission from the concerned trial Court;
(iv) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the
investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application
for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners;
(v) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed
unless personal presence is exempted;
26.It is made clear that in case of non-cooperation of the petitioners in course of
the trial, the learned trial court will take all measure available for securing
the appearance of the petitioners so that the trial may not be
hindered/lingered.
27.In view thereof, all the instant anticipatory bail applications stand disposed
of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Saurabh/-
